JUDGMENT J.M.L. Sinha, J. - This revision arises out of the judgment and order dated 28th January 1981 passed by the Sessions Judge Mainpuri affirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the applicant for the offence under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision can briefly be stated as under :- On 24th February 1978 Sri Chandrika Singh, Food Inspector collected sample of honey from the possession of the present applicant. The formalities prescribed by law were duly complied with. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst who reported it to be adulterated. A complaint was, therefore, filed for the prosecution of the applicant who denied the prosecution case in toto. The trial court on a consideration of the evidence on record, held that the charge under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was made out beyond reasonable doubt against the applicant and in the result convicted and sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine the applicant was directed to undergo two months' further rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved against it the applicant filed an appeal in the court of sessions which resulted in dismissal and hence this revision. 3. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the record of the case. 4. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant in the trial Court and reiterated to this court was that there was no evidence to show that the applicant has sold honey. The two courts below having examined this plea, found it devoid of substance and rejected it. I am in agreement with the two courts below on that point. It has been held more than once that sale to a Food Inspector is also a sale for purposes of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Sri Chandrika Singh Food Inspector made a categorical statement to the effect that he had paid Rs. 10.50 as the price for the sample that he had collected. Nothing could be elicited in the cross examination to demolish this part of his testimony. Further there is a receipt (Ex. ka.2) which bear the signature of the applicant and the signature of the witnesses. 10.50 as the price for the sample that he had collected. Nothing could be elicited in the cross examination to demolish this part of his testimony. Further there is a receipt (Ex. ka.2) which bear the signature of the applicant and the signature of the witnesses. In this document too, it is explicitly stated that applicant received Rs. 10.50 paise as price of 750 grams of honey taken by the Food Inspector. 5. It is true that the applicant said during his examination in the trial Court that he had accidently reached the place where the sample was collected and that the man from whose possession the sample was collected ran away and instead the Food Inspector implicated him in this case. This plea was taken into consideration by the two courts below and was rightly rejected. Obviously the Food Inspector could not forcibly obtain the signatures of the applicant on the notice and the receipt. There is consistent evidence of Chandrika Singh Food Inspector and Jamal (PW2) that it was the applicant from whose possession the sample was collected and their evidence fiads ample corroboration from the notice and receipt which bear the signatures of the applicant. This evidence existing on record the contention of the applicant cannot be accepted for any moment. 6. Yet another contention raised in trial court and reiterated before me was that in the case of honey dew the sucrose contents can be upto 10 percent and hence the sucrose contents in the sample were not in excess of prescribed limit. Assuming that it is so, according to the standard prescribed for honey, it should not contain more than (a) 25% of moisture (b) 0.5 percent ash and further (c) fructose/glucose ratio should not be less 0.90. According to the report of the Public Analyst fructose/Glucose was 66% and ash was 0.8 percent in the sample collected by the Food Inspector. Thus even if the J sucrose contents is not taken into consideration, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the sample of honey was adulterated. 7. It was also urged before me that the Food Inspector had not complied with the provisions of Section 10(7) of the Act which requires that, while collecting sample the Food Inspector shall call one or more person to be present. The receipt Ex. ka. 7. It was also urged before me that the Food Inspector had not complied with the provisions of Section 10(7) of the Act which requires that, while collecting sample the Food Inspector shall call one or more person to be present. The receipt Ex. ka. 2 shows that the sample was taken possession of in the presence of three persons namely, Jagdish Prasad, Laxmi Narain and Jamal. Jagdish Prasad and Laxmi Narain entered the witness box as defence witnesses and deposed that the sample was not taken in their presence and that while they were passing that way the Food Inspector asked them to sign the receipt and they did so. According to them the receipt was blank at that time. It was presumably on the basis of this statement made by Jagdish Prasad and Laxmi Narain that it was urged that section 10(7) was not complied with. Both courts below have however recorded a finding to the effect that Jagdish Prasad and Laxmi Natain were not truthful witnesses. It is not open to me sitting as a court of revision to re-appreciate that evidence. Needless to say that in view of the fact that the receipt Ex. ka. 2 bears the signatures of both the witnesses it could reasonably be held that the sample was collected in their presence and the statement to the contrary made by them in the trial Court were not true. Under these circumstances it could not be accepted that the provisions of sub section (7) of section 10 of the Act had not been complied with. 8. No other contention having been raised, I find that this revision is devoid of substance. This revision accordingly falls and is herby dismissed. The stay order dated 27.2.1981 is vacated.